Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[kemoT]

Hello everyone. I took a look at "Empire Mode" thread and it inspired me to think on the topic of politics in fortress mode. I think that currently we don't need to care about our civ at all. We just request materials from caravans and get higher in hierarchy by becoming barony/duchy/mountainhomes, but it doesn't change the gameplay much, it just adds new nobles and generates mandates. I think that this system should be changed totally. Here are some ideas, feel free to comment and criticize it.
From time to time, when important events happen in our civ (war declaration, change of a king, enemy invasion) moutainhomes will organize noble's meeting. In such case rulers of all fortresses belonging to our civ will meet in capital, including highest ranking noble (or messenger, if we have one) from our city. He will just live the map and when he gets to the capital a conversation screen (similar to one which we have when we talk with outpost liaison) will appear. First king announces the topic of current debate. Then we have option to state our opinion on it (few options are available like saying it in ironic/offending/polite way, this would affect other rulers reaction) and other nobles will either agree with us, or criticize it. Their reaction would depend on their situation and our position and reputation in civ. For example a fortress that suffered heavy losses from goblin attacks won't agree on proposition of declaring war on humans and will laugh at our support of this kind of decision. Of course rather than playing our cards instantly we can wait and let other nobles talk first and comment on their statements (again in different ways). Such discussion lasts until all nobles stated their opinions. At the end king makes his decision depending on what particular nobles said.
Here we need some kind of reputation system, which changes other noble's opinion on us. It should depend on our actions (laughing at other baron wouldn't make him think positively about us) and wealth. Maybe under "z" menu politics tab should be added.
After king made his decision our noble returns to our fort. Of course outcome of the discussion will have some kind of effect on our fort, for example if our king decided to go to war a diplomat will come requesting us to send one of our military squad, or send (for free) some kind of armor and/or weapons. We can refuse to do this, but this will lower our reputation and if we do it too often we will be declared traitors and dwarf army will siege us to establish new government.
My proposition of decisions requiring a debate:
-war declaration, consequences: send troops/weapons/armor,
-enemy invasion, consequences: send troops/weapons/armor,
-helping forts that were attacked, consequences: send food, drinks, clothes,
-economic crisis (happens when you produce too much coins that go to your civ), consequences: you need to stop producing coins,
-death of current king who lacked offspring, consequences: you need to appoint ruler (you can propose yourself as candidate), the noble with highest support becomes a new king,
-hunger, consequences: send food.
Thank you for reading this, sorry for all grammar and spelling mistakes. Hope you like my ideas.
I greet
kemoT
PS: soldiers who you sent as consequence of a debate, should later return to you (if they survive war) with option to get wounded and gain more experience.

[GoblinCookie]

As it stands I am happy enough with the central government making decisions about war and stuff because otherwise why exactly do they exist?  It is fairly easy I think given a mere decade or so to become the central government. 

I have always thought more along the lines of replacing the present wealth based system with a system of payments including in troops to the central government.  The payments are 'voluntery' in that if you do not pay up nothing bad happens directly but instead you will not get promoted nor recieve aid in times of emergency. 

Wealth instead functions to increase the cost of payments that are demanded of you.  If you make your payments you rise in status while if you refuse to pay up you reduce in status.  The formula should be based upon wealth, time since founding and population at last visit. 

So we have total created wealth.
%
Number of years played.
%
Population. 

You can spend your political favour in order to leverage for material support.  When you are about to be besieged if you have something other than nil political favour you could recieve extra troops and once enemy digging has been implemented we could recieve an AI controlled relief force if we hold out for long enough under siege. 

[kemoT]

I didn't mean that dwarf create "democratic" system. My idea was that council of nobles performs just advisory role. I like your ideas, but it doesn't really make us react to civ's changing situation. It's just paying for potential help. Although I would agree with you if the supply demands were depending on the current situation and it would affect our reputation.

[Insanegame27]

we have dwarven politics. It just involves magma, like anything should when dealing with dwarves.

Noble bans mug export.
Noble has burnt to death

[GoblinCookie]

we have dwarven politics. It just involves magma, like anything should when dealing with dwarves.

Noble bans mug export.
Noble has burnt to death

But the noble has friends that suspect your complicity in his death.

The problem with all rebellion ideas is making sure that player cannot find easy ways around the system.

[Argonnek]

I like kemoT's ideas here. The council of nobles sounds pretty similar to the way feudal systems were run, where the prominent nobles of the land would meet with the king to make decisions about things like war and succession. As far as I'm aware, the dwarves run on the feudal system, so this suggestion makes a lot of sense.

[Dirst]

One way to start small on this idea is to just have attending the council earn some political capital, modified by social skills.  You can skip these (and probably will the first couple years), but then your only way to get political capital is by sending stuff or soldiers.

Eventually a political minigame would be great... when it's robust enough to let the player and/or the player fort's leader be the one weighing advice and causing shifting alliances.

[GoblinCookie]

I like kemoT's ideas here. The council of nobles sounds pretty similar to the way feudal systems were run, where the prominent nobles of the land would meet with the king to make decisions about things like war and succession. As far as I'm aware, the dwarves run on the feudal system, so this suggestion makes a lot of sense.

As said before many times they do not run on a feudal system.  They run on a socialist/communist system because despite the existance of 'barons' and 'kings' among dwarves nobody owns any actual private property except for the clothes on their back. 

The problem with the present system is that it has a central government that is basically only providing four services to the local governments.  There is no reason why they need to do any more and the list is simple enough to be developed without sucking up all of Toady One's time, remember that we are developing things as they work in DF universe not how they worked in the past during historical era X. 

1. Defense.
2. Trade.
3. Foreign Policy.
4. Colonisation.

But all completely for free without anyone having to pay for them.  The first also does not appear to work in relation to player-controlled forts but does for the AI controlled one's. 

One way to start small on this idea is to just have attending the council earn some political capital, modified by social skills.  You can skip these (and probably will the first couple years), but then your only way to get political capital is by sending stuff or soldiers.

Eventually a political minigame would be great... when it's robust enough to let the player and/or the player fort's leader be the one weighing advice and causing shifting alliances.

The right to attend the council should only exists for barons, counts and dukes, that is the nobles that are earned at present for mining lots of gold.  Before you earn such nobles you have to provide services to your civilization, the services that are demanded of you are related to what the civilization is doing in the wider world, for instance.

1. Defense: You are required to provide men to fight in the war, men that must be of a certain standard of training.
2. Trade: You are required to help construct a new caravan, providing the needed materials for a wagon, animals and a certain value of goods.
3. Foreign Policy: You are required to embargo a particular civilization and to refuse to trade with their merchants.
4. Colonisation: You are required to provide some or all of the needed goods required by a new startup embark.

These things are actually related to what is going on in the world but the exact amount of assistance required depends upon your wealth, the richer you are the more they want.  You start off at political capital 30 and have to raise your political capital by provided services to the central government that are proportionate to your wealth.  Once you have such a noble they can depart with the caravan in the autumn and come back in the winter to attend the council held at the capital city. 

The noble can be ordered to propose a particular course of action or support or argue against a course of action proposed by another noble.  It is easier to argue against courses of action proposed by lower ranking nobles, harder to argue against courses of action proposed by higher ranking nobles and very hard to argue against courses of action proposed by the king himself.

[Dyret]

As said before many times they do not run on a feudal system.  They run on a socialist/communist system because despite the existance of 'barons' and 'kings' among dwarves nobody owns any actual private property except for the clothes on their back. 

They run on a feudal system with the economy stripped because it sucked. It's a temporary thing.

[Dirst]

... and very hard to argue against courses of action proposed by the king himself.

It's not hard.  It's just unwise.

[kemoT]

I don't think that council should meet every year. My idea was that all less important decisions are taken by the king. Nobles should meet only in very difficult situations which influence whole civ. This is why I think that mayor should also be able to attend meetings. Every fortress needs representative.

[GoblinCookie]

I don't think that council should meet every year. My idea was that all less important decisions are taken by the king. Nobles should meet only in very difficult situations which influence whole civ. This is why I think that mayor should also be able to attend meetings. Every fortress needs representative.

Mayors should not be able to attend meetings.  The reason is everyone has a mayor and the baron has to have a specific function.  At the moment based upon the text being given becoming a barony means being formally integrated into the civilization's government. 

You should not have representation without a baron because the baron's job is to represent your fort to the king.  The settlement nominates a candidate for the job once it has reached a certain level of wealth. 

[kemoT]

Mayors should be able to attend meetings. Of course their opinion shouldn't matter as much as opinion of other nobles, but definitely  they should be representatives of he fortress, because the rank is MAYOR, which means that your fortress is no longer outpost but a city.

[Bumber]

Mayors should be able to attend meetings. Of course their opinion shouldn't matter as much as opinion of other nobles, but definitely  they should be representatives of he fortress, because the rank is MAYOR, which means that your fortress is no longer outpost but a city.

Who will hold down the fort while the mayor is away? What if the snooty elves show up and need deaf ears for their tree-cutting complaints to fall on?

[Blastbeard]

Who will hold down the fort while the mayor is away? What if the snooty elves show up and need deaf ears for their tree-cutting complaints to fall on?

Sounds like a job for a representative, somebody temporarily given the status of mayor long enough for the actual mayor to go off and do whatever needs doing. Allowing higher nobility to do that would allow them to go off and lead armies during wars, something that was usually expected of them in antiquity. Seeing that happen in an active fort might not happen for awhile, but when it does having a troublesome duke go away and stop causing trouble for awhile would be a welcome reprieve, moreso if they should so happen to be struck down by a jabberer.
As for who takes over for while they're out, the position holder's spouse or whoever is designated by SUCCESSION_BY would probably make the most sense. Either that or a friend the position holder trusts.